Newspaper of the Campaign for Freedom of Information Number 3 50p

Top civil servants (past and present)contribute to drive for open Govt.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information is pleased toannounce that a number of distinguished former civilservantshave accepted its invitation to serve on a panel of advisers.

The panel, chaired by SirDouglas Wass, former J oint Headof the Civil Service (1981-1983) and former PermanentSecretary of the Treasury (1974-1983),will include:• Lord Croham, who, as SirDouglas Allen, was Head of the

Civil Serviceand Permanent Secretary of the Civil ServiceDepartment (1974-1977)and Permanent Secretary of theTreasury (1968-1974).

• Sir Patrick Nairne, who was Permanent Secretary of theDHSS (1975-1981).

• Sir Kenneth Clucas, who was Permanent Secretary at theDepartment of Prices and Consumer Protection (1974-1979) and Permanent Secretary of the Department ofTrade (1979-1981).

• Mr. Michael Power, who was an Under-Secretary in theMinistry of Defence (1973 to 1981).

• Mrs. Barbara Sloman, who was an Under-Secretary in theCivilServiceDepartment, subsequently the Cabinet Office(1975-1984).

The Panel will be available to advise and comment onaspects of the Campaign's legislative proposals in the light oftheir own expenence.

It is hoped to add further to their number as the need arisesfor advice in specific areas.

Jointly announcing this arrangement, James Cornford,Chairman of the Council for Freedom of Information, andDes Wilson, Chairman of the Campaign Committee, stated:

"We are naturally very pleased to have access to the adviceof this group of former senior civil servants with such lengthyand invaluable experience in government.

"We should make it clear that they are not only people ofdistinction, but independence of mind, and wehave not asked,nor would we expect, that they support all of our detailedobjectives. (In this respect their position issimilar to that of ourparliamentary supporters, and supporting organisations, whoshare our broad aims but not necessarily every detail of ourproposals).

"Our preliminary discussions have demonstrated, how-ever, that they are unanimous in their view that Section 2 ofThe Official Secrets Act should be repealed, and thatlegislative action is required to create greater freedom ofinformation. The fact that these busy people have gen-erously offered their time to advise the Campaign speaks foritself 'of the depth of their concern about the extent ofunnecessary secrecy, and we are much encouraged by this. "

First Division civilservants say 'YesJ

Lord Croham

Sir Kenneth Clucas

Sir Patrick Nairne

The First Division Association ofCivil Servants has taken the unpre-cedented step of affiliating with anoutside pressure group - theCampaign for Freedom of Infor-mation.

After a major debate at itsannual conference, the Associa-tion firmly committed itself tofreedom of information, and thenwent on to decide to support theCampaign.

If is now represented on theCampaign's Council together withrepresentatives of all the othermajor civil service unions, for theCivil and Public Services Asso-

ciation, the Socjety of Civil andPublic Servants, and the In-stitution of Professional Civil Ser-vants all passed resolutions at theirconferences in support of the !

Campaign, as did the NationalUnion of Public Employees.

In a remarkable tribute to thecampaign, Alan Healey, chairman Sir Douglas Wassof the First Division AssociationMachinery of Government Sub- political axe to grind. They knowCommittee wrote in the Associa- their stuff, areserious-minded andtion's journal: "We were favour- realistic in their expectations. Weably impressed with the approach found them willing to listen toadopted by the Campaign. This is alternative argument and take oncertainly not just another board points about practical andcampaign with a self-interested or ethical difficulties. "

Conservative MP leadsCampaign in CommonsA Conservative Member ofParliament, Jonathan Aitken,is to chair the Campaign's all-party parliamentary advisorycommittee.

This committee will becomeactive in the Autumn when theCampaign will be seeking topromote its private memberbills (see page 3).

Mr. Aitken has himself hadthe unique experience for aMember of Parliament of ap-pearing in the dock at the Old

Bailey on a charge under Sec-tion 2 of the Official Secrets Actarising from his work as ajournalist and his coverage ofthe Nigeria crisis in the earlySeventies. Together with thenewspaper, The Sunday Tel-egraph, and its editor, Mr.Aitken was acquitted and in hissumming up Mr. Justice Caul-field made the suggestion thatSection 2 should be "pensionedoff" .

The committee has 14 mem-bers.

Bill will be thefocus for anational debate

By James Cornford

Thanks to an initiative by the Liberal leader , David Steel, a Freedom ofInformation Bill bas been given its first reading in the House ofCommons and has been printed. Of course, it stands no chance atpresent for lack of parliamentary time, but the importance of this stepis two-fold:

First, the Bill will provide a focus for the national debate about bowfreedom of information legislation should be introduced in Britain,and what it would achieve.

Second, we believe we have been able to incorporate in the Billadequate answers to tbe fears expressed by the Prime Minister andotbers about the effects of such legislation.

The Bill is a considerable advance on those introduced into theHouse by Clement Freud in 1978179 and Frank Hooley in 1981, notleast because we have been able to exantine the legislation introduced incountries which share our constitutional tradition, sucb as Canada,Australia and New Zealand, and also learn from their early ex-periences.

The Bill has two main purposes: first, it establishes a right of accessby the public to official information, subject to specific exemptions;second, it repeals Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911and replacesit by measures which protect specified classes of information wheredisclosure would cause serious harm.

Before listing briefly the main features of the Bill, I would like toemphasise that the Campaign hopes there will be widespread discussionof its provisions and that individuals and organisations will not hesitateto offer critical comments. If we can improve it, we are anxious to doso. In this respect, our supporting and observer organisations arecommitted to the broad aims of the Bill but are also encouraged to seekto improve or strengthen it.

With reference to the right of access, the Bill ...• enables individuals to obtain access to any official document held

by a central government department, health or water authority,provided that it is not specifically exempt or already publiclyavailable. Only documents created after the Bill comes into forcemay be obtained under it.

• lays down the procedures for applying for and obtaining docu-(continued on page 2)

Hopes that an MP willintroduce PrivateMemberJs Bill on accessto personal files

A Bill, drafted by tbe Campaign for Freedom of Information, to create access by individualsto their own personal files has been given its first reading in the House of Commons.

Tbe Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule Procedure by Chris Smith MP.Mr. Smith hopes to win a top place in the Private Members Ballot in the autumn so that he

can obtain adequate Parliamentary time for the Bill, but if he does not achieve this, he hopesthat another MP of any party who comes high in the ballot will adopt the Bill.

The campaign has high hopes that it will receive enthusiastic aU-party support.

The Access to Personal Files Billwillallow individuals to obtain copies of,and where necessary require that cor-rections be made to, informationrelating to themselves.

It will complement the Data Pro-tection Act 1984 which gives indi-viduals the right to check their compu-terised records. This Act does not,however, apply to non-computerisedfiles.

The decision by Chris Smith MP tointroduce the Bill followed the pub-lication of Secrets File No 3. Thisdemonstrated that while many publicservices kept detailed files on indi-viduals which were accessible to' aconsiderable number of people whosemain qualification would appear to bethat they are "professionals", indi-viduals themselves do not know whatis in their file, how many people haveaccess to the file, and in what circums-tances, or what decisions are taken onthe basis of what information,

In many other countries, legislationalready exists allowing individuals toobtain records held about them byofficial agencies. These include theUnited States, Australia, Canada,New Zealand and a number of Eu-ropean countries, including Denmark,France, Norway and Sweden,

The bill given its first reading in theHouse of Commons would entitle anindividual to be told by an authoritywhether it holds records relating tohim or her, whether indexed under hisor her name or that of another in-dividual, and to be supplied withcopies of such records, with anynecessary explanation of terms.

Time limits for complying withrequests, and for obtaining the con-sent, where needed, of any otherindividual mentioned in the records,are laid down.

The Bill will require authorities tomaintain and make publicly availableindexes of the kinds ofrecords held bythem which are subject to the pro-visions of the Bill. It entitles indi-viduals who consider that informationon records relating to them is in-accurate, incomplete, irrelevant, outof date or misleading, to apply for it tobe corrected, erased, supplemented oramended. Where such a request is notgranted, the applicant is entitled tohave a note of his or her contentionentered on the record. The applicant

may also appeal in the case of refusal., Authorities will be required to drawup codes of practice containing pro-cedures to ensure that the objectives ofthe Bill are met.

Some types of information will beexempt from disclosure under the Bill,namely information affecting the priv-acy of other individuals: informationlikely to reveal the identity of a mem-ber of the public providing in-formation to an authority in con-fidence; information whose disclosurewould be likely to expose some personother than the applicant to risk of

Access to Personal Files (No.2)

A

B ILLTo provide access for private individuals

to information relating to themselvesmaintained by certain authorities. insti·tutions and persons; to allow individualsto obtain copies of, and require correc-tions to be made to, such information;and to provide for the enforcement ofthese provisions.

Pus~n(~d by Mr. Chris Smithsupporud by Mr. Nicholas Brown,

Mr. Jertmy Corbyn, Mr. Dtuk Fa!cheu.Mr.lt!rry Hay,-s, Mr. Sean Hughes,

Mr. Ian Mlkardo, Mr. NormQJI MI.scampb~lI.Mr P~tu Pjk~. Mr, Allan Roberts,

Clare Short and Mr. James Wallace

Ordered, by The House of Commons.(0 be Primed, 25(h July 1984

WNDON

Pr1f:~~£~~~;~i~~..P"rUlUDeAW)' PruJ

£2·70oel[Bill 225] ('''''') 49/1

shaHbe exempt from disclosure unlessaccess is reasonably necessary to en-able a proper understanding of thedocument lawfully disclosed, or itscontents have been significantly af-fected by a change made after this Billcomes into effect.

Where exempt information hasbeen used as a basis for a decision oraction affecting the applicant'sinterests, the information shaH bedisclosed if the legitimate interests ofthe applicant outway the interestsprotected by tile exemption. TheRegistrar, as defined in the DataProtection Act, will act as the firstplace of appeal.

Introducing his Bill to the House ofCommons, Chris Smith said "There istoo often a patronising and arrogantassumption that the professionalknows best and that individuals can-not be trusted with recorded infor-mation about themselves. My pro-posed Bill seeks to challenge thatassumption and to enshrine a right ofaccess to all. The Bill forms a practicalpart of the Campaign for Freedom ofInformation; an attempt to open upthe closed processes of administra-tion, and to do so at the frontline whereindividual citizens are most directlyinvolved. "

Mr.Smith said there were powerfulreasons for providing a right of access:first, secrecy, and the paternalism thatgives rise to it, makes for bad govern-ment and bad administration; second,a right of access would lead to morecareful records; third, the opportunityto correct inaccuracies would be in-'valuable; fourth, a right of access forfiles kept on paper would rectify animbalance which would exist betweencomputerised records opened up bythe Data Protection Act - and paperrecords; fifth, greater openness couldprovide a major benefit for theauthority and the professionalworkers involved as well as for theparticular client.

"Over and above all these practicalissues however, is an overriding moralissue. Surely a citizen should have theright to know what is being written andrecorded about them by those em-ployed by the community to provideservices or to exercise authority."

The Access to Personal Files Billintroduced by Chris Smith MP. It ish6ped Mr. Smith or another MP whocomes high in the Private MembersBallot in the autumn will introduce itearly in 1985.

serious injury; or information which issubject to legal professional privilege.

Where a report contains exemptinformation, the record shaH be dis-closed with the exempt informationremoved.

Disclosure may be deferred for up tosix months if, in the opinion of amedical practitioner, immediate dis-closure would be likely to expose theapplicant to risk of serious physical ormental harm.

A record or part of a record pre-pared before the Bill comes into effect

See Report by Maurice Frankel onAccess to Medical Files - Page 4.

Data Protection Act createsprecedent for right to know

The Data Protection Act 1984advances the cause of freedom of information by enablingindividuals to check their computerised records. James Michael reports.

The good news is that the Data Pro-tection Act 1984 will give people alegally enforceable right to knowwhat information about them is heldon computers. The bad news is thatthe right will not be effective for atleast two years, and even then will besubject to several key exceptions.

The Act has a long history, the mostimportant aspect of which is that itwas passed for commercial reasonsrather than out of a governmentalinterest in protecting privacy. Therewas widespread concern that othercountries might use their data protect-ion laws to cut off business withBritish data processors. To avoid thisthe Council of Europe prepared a

Data Protection Convention to es-tablish minimum standards for pro-'cessing personal information by com-puters,

The British Data Protection Act isdesigned to meet the bare minimumstandards of the Convention so thatthe Un'itedKingdom can join the club.Because of this the British governmenthas taken advantage of every possibleloophole in the Convention, many ofwhich affect the right of 'subjectaccess' .

The first loophole is that the Con-vention only requires protection forcomputer-stored information, andnot for old-fashioned paper files, Itencourages countries to establish simi-

lar rights for 'manual files' , however,and several other countries have donejust that. But the British Act does notapply to manual files, and there arealready arguments about whether itcovers paper or microfiche files thatare linked to a computerised index.

The second loophole is 'allowed bythe Convention for national security,and the British Act takes full ad-vantage of it. If a Cabinet Ministercertifies that personal information isprocessed for purposes of nationalsecurity, then that processing is com-pletely outside the Act. The DataProtection Registrar, who has the jobof seeing that data processors obeythe rules, will probably have no power

Fol Bill will serve as focusfor a national debate

continued from page 1ments.

• requires a reply to requests within 30 days. Where access is granted,the document must be made available for inspection and copying assoon as practicable. Where access is refused, the applicant must betold why, and has the right to appeal to an Information Com-missioner and subsequently to apply for,a review to an InformationTribunal.

• requires the correction of any document found to contain in-accurate or misleading information about the applicant.

• lists exemptions from disclosure, notably where disclosure would:(1) seriously impair defence, security or foreign relations, other

than with the European Communities(2) assist in the commission of crime or impede law inforcement(3) normally be protected by lawyer-client privilege(4)(a) give an unfair advantage to competitors of the party

concerned, or(b) impair the ability of the department or authority to obtain

similar information in the future(5) constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy(6) reveal the advice given by an individual official on the making

of policy.Expert opinion on a scientific or technical issue or on the in-

,terpretation of information is not covered by the last exemption.Exemption for commercial confidences or personal privacy may beover-ruled where disclosure would clearly be in the public interest.The Bill also:• requires the publication of any guidelines, interpretations, or rules

used in making decisions that directly affect individuals.• requires government departments to make available indexes to

documents and codes of guidance describing how members of thepublic may apply for, inspect, copy and correct documents underthe Bill. The information commissioner will be entitled to in-vestigate complaints from applicants about refusal of access andother matters and also has powers to initiate investigations, and tocommand witnesses and documents. Where he finds a complaint isjustified, he shall make an order requiring that access be given tothe information.

An applicant whose complaint is not upheld by the commissionermay appeal to the tribunal for review, and government departmentsmay also appeal to the tribunal against any order from the com-missioner requiring them to disclose a document. Parties whosecommercial confidences or personal privacy may be affected may alsoappeal.

Part 2 of the Bill replaces Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Itdefines information whose unauthorised disclosures should constitutean offence, namely(a) information likely to cause serious injury to the defence, in-

ternational relations, security or intelligence of the nation, or(b) information communicated for the purposes of assisting a crime or

impeding the detection of offences.It also creates a defence against charges of wrongful disclosure

where the information is already publicly available or where thedisclosure is in the public interest.

The main changes in the provisions of this Bill from the Freud andHooley Bills are:• access to documents created before the Act comes into effect will be

much more restricted to allow for the problems of governmentdepartments in reorganising their systems of record-keeping.

• a new exemption for advice on policy by public servants has beenadded, together with a tightening of the exemptions for tradesecrets and privacy, which are now subject to an override in thepublic interest.

• an Information Commissioner with extensive powers has replacedthe Parliamentary Commissioner as the arbiter of complaints aboutaccess, with appeal to a special Tribunal rather than the courts.

• the protection of criminal sanctions is no longer available for tradesecrets or privacy.

Copies of the Bill can be obtained from HMSO or the Campaign forFreedom of Information and any comments or suggestions should beaddressed to the Legislation Sub-Committee, Campaign for Freedom ofInformation, 2 Northdown Street, London N1 9BG.James Cornford, Director of the Nuffield Foundation, and Chairman of theRoyal Institute for Public Administration, is Chairman of the Council forFreedom 0/ In/ormation.

at allover the databanks of MIS,MI6, and the Special Branch.

The Registrar's powers are closelyrelated to the delay of over two yearsbefore 'data subjects', as we are allknown under the Act, will have anyrights at all. The first part of his jobwill be to compile a register of all'data users' who use computers toprocess personal information. He hastwo years to do that, and has nopower to do anything else during thatperiod. And, although the Data Pro-tectioh Act is now officially law, theregistration period will only beginwhen the Home Secretary names theday, probably in January 1985.

But by about 1987 data subjectswill have some important, if limited,rights. The most important of theseare expressed as the principles of'subject access' and of 'nondisclo-sure'. The first is your right to knowwhat the computer has on you, and isconnected to your right to have itcorrected. The second principle isthat personal information collected

for one purpose should not be used'for another, so that your medicalrecords generally should not be givento the police.

Under the Act, both of these basicrules can be broken in the interest ofpreventing crime or tax evasion. Forexample, the police may refuse to letyou see what their computer has onyou if it would prejudice crime pre-vention, and medical informationmay be passed to tax authorities in theinterest of preventing tax evasion.

But -the Registrar dqes have thepowerto decide whether such breacheswere really justified, on a case-by-case basis, That power, along with thepowers bf the courts to order cor-rection, erasure, and compensation ifdamage has been caused, are import-ant improvements. In about 1987 theimportance of those improvementswill depend on the Registrar, thecourts, and, perhaps most important,the willingness of 'data subjects' toassert their new rights,

Bill wouldmake waterauthoritiesmeet publicly

CampaignJs legislativeStrategy is outlined STOP

PRESS-l'he Campaign for Freedom of Information has already achieved firstreadings for three pieces of FOI legislation and two others are in thepipeline.

All five Bills are being introduced under the Ten Minute Ruleprocedure by MPs of all parties, with all-party support.• A full Freedom of Information Bill, drafted by the Campaign (see

Page 1) was introduced by the Leader of the Liberal Party, The RtBon David Steel.

• An Access to Personal Files Bill (see Page 2) was introduced byLabour MP Chris Smith.

• A Bill to open up local authorities was introduced by Liberal MPSimon Hughes (see Secrets File No 5).All were given a first reading but will lapse for lack of parliamentarytime. s

• Two further Bills will be introduced in the autumn, at least one by aConservative MP. They will be a Bill to open up Water Authorities(see this page) and a Bill on environmental secrecy (see Page 4).

The purpose of these initiatives is three-fold: first, to achieveparliamentary time for exposure of excessive secrecy and for proposalsfor Freedom of Information; second, to have the Bills printed as a focusfor the national debate on how FOI could be introduced; tbird, to makeavailable a number of FOI options for Members of Parliamentparticipating in the ballot for Private Members Bills in the autumn.

The Campaign's strategy is as follows:The full Freedom of Information Bill will not be pushed by the

Campaign this autumn. It is the Campaign's view that this is not anappropriate time, politically, to attempt to introduce this major piece oflegislation in tbe House. Instead, it will serve as the focus for a nationaldebate until such time as it is felt there is a real probability ofparliamentary success.

In the meantime, however, the Campaign will push its other Bills andhope to achieve at least an element of FOI with all-party support.

Top priorities are the Bills to create access by individuals to theirpersonal files, and to open up local authorities.

The TUC at its 1984 conference atBrighton passed the following res-olution:

'Congress considers that greaterfreedom of information will, makeBritain more democratic and enhancethe quality oj public debate.

Congress believes that the Campaignfor Freedom of Information hasfurther exposed that the continued useby the Government of Section 2 of theOfficial Secrets Act is contrary tomoves in many democratic countriestowards open government, and calls forthe repeal of Section 2,

Congress believes that the objectiveof the Campaign should be applied, asfar as is reasonably possible, to allpublic bodies, and callsfor measures toincrease public access to information.It calls upon the General Council tomake representations to governmentand join with other organisations aspart oj a campaign to achieve theseobjectives,

Congress calls on the Government toensure that the BBC, IBA, and the newcable authority conduct their affairs ina more open and publicly accountablefashion.'

The Campaign for Freedom of Information and the Community RightsProject are to sponsor a Private Members Bill to require water,authorities to meet in public.

The Bill will be backed up by a special Secrets File on water authoritysecrecy (it will be published soon).

Before the 1983 Water Act, members of the public had a right to seeminutes of water autbority meetings and could turn up in person to hearthe discussions and see which way individual members voted. The mediacould also cover meetings. Under the Act, bowever, water authoritieswere given the option to exclude the press and public from meetings, andall nine English Water Authorities immediately decided to do so. TheWelsh Water Authority is the one that continues to act openly.

The Bill will be roughly as follows:Water Authorities (Meetings) Bill 1984

1. (1) The Public Bodies (Admissions to part of a,ny meeting of a waterMeetings) Act 1960 shall apply to authority shall be available formeetings of water authorities. public inspection at all reasonable

(2) Lines 1-3of Part I of Schedule 5 of hours at least three clear days beforethe Water Act 1983 (which excludes the meeting of any water authoritywater authorities from the pro- and any member of the public mayvisions ofthe Public Bodies (Admis- make a copy of any such agendasions to Meetings) Act 1960) shall upon payment of a reasonable fee,cease to have effect. 3. This Act shall come into force on 1st

2. Copies of the agendas of the public January 1985.

Campaign Comment

What we have learned from" .

the F.o.l.debate in 1984propose that FoI is unnecessary, or would not work withour unique constitution, despite the daily proof of needand tbe fact that it has been introduced effectively incountries with similar constitutions. It is to imply thatparliament would be weakened and Ministers made lessaccountable, although the reverse is the case. And it is torefuse any open debate on the issue, simply because theyknow only too well tha't they cannot sustain their position.That is why senior civil servants have been instructed notto talk to the Campaign. What a travesty of democracy,and what bypocrisy to link such an approach with claimsthat tbey believe in more open administration.

Let's repeat once more, therefore, the following points:• Freedom of information is now urgently necessary to

correct the imbalance of access to informationbetween governors and governed in Britain - animbalance of such size and scope that it seriouslyundermines the health of our democracy. The sourcesof power and influence are obscured. Public servantsare not properly accountable. Public participation isseriously hampered. Justice is often not seen to bedone. Inefficiency and error are made more likely.

• The need for greater freedom of information, and forrepeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, has beenemphasised by every major inquiry into the operationof the civil service, and into the Official Secrets Act inparticular.

• Freedom of information has been effectively intro-duced in a variety of countries to tbe benefit of thepeople and to the quality of public administrationwitbout excessive cost and adverse effects on ef-ficiency.

• It is possible to protect tbose matters that shouldremain secret - in fact, secrecy, where it is necessary,will be strengthened and not weakened by the imple-mentation of legislation based on a consensus aboutwhat should be open and what should be confidential.

Our campaign has already demonstrated that freedomof information is a cause'for this nation's people andinstitutions alike, and has the support of the majority ofboth. The Prime Minister's isolated position is becomingincreasingly untenable. If her claims of firm allegiance todemocracy and individual freedom are to have anycredibility whatsoever, sbe must at least allow open andfree debate on the issue, and even participate herself, andshe must at least allow both the parliamentary time andfreedom of expression to her MPs for the constructive FoIBills on access to personal files, local authorities, waterauthorities, and environmental pollution, all of themurgently needed, and all of them designed to deal withsecrecy where it affects the public most directly.

As we approach the last quarter of 1984 it is possible todraw a number of conclusions on access to information:

First, while Orwell's more terrifying predictions have,thankfully, not been fulfilled, his vision of a leadership in1984 committed to the principle that 'ignorance isstrength' has been realised. The Prime Minister has flatlyrefused to discuss or even allow her colleagues to discussfreedom of information. Unnecessary secrecy has in-creased. The discredited Section 2 of the Official SecretsAct has been more frequently employed for both pros-ecutions and the issue of search warrants over the past 6months tban over the previous 5 years. Considerableresources of police manpower are devoted to investi-gations into leaks - politically embarrassing leaks, ratherthan leaks likely to endanger the state. Media ma-nipulation has reached unprecedented levels. If theCampaign for Freedom of Information had not beenneeded before 1984, the Prime Minister and her associateshave by their every action underlined both the need for,and the urgency of the cause today.

Second, there is a national consensus on the need forFoI legislation. The FoI coalition now exceeds 50 well-established and respected organisations from every fieldof social concern. Hundreds of local organisations haveindicated support, as have local authorities. The media,itself a reflection of public opinion, overwhelminglysupports the demand for FoI. Public meetings have beenwell-attended and enthusiastic. All of the oppositionparties are united in support, and many Conservativeshave had tbe courage to reject Mrs. Thatcher's lead andopenly declare their support for freedom of information.

Third, the fact that every civil service union supports theCampaign, and that even the First Division civil servantstook the unprecedented step of affiliating to an outsidecampaign, demonstrates that the main problem is not thecivil service, but the politicians, whose record - and thisis so of all parties - has been to pay lip-service to freedomof information in opposition, but fail to act when inpower.

Fourth, the entire case of the opponents of freedom ofinformation has been discredited. The campaign has beenable to draw on the experience of other countries, plus theadvice of many knowledgeable and concerned membersof its coalition, to produce a draft FoI Bill dealing with allthe reservations expressed by the Prime Minister herself in'her letter to the Campaign in January. We have been ableto propose an appeals procedure that does not, as shefeared, transfer decisions to the courts. Likewise, fearsthat FoI would mean there could be no confidentiality atall have been disproved; exemptions to the proposedlegislation more than adequately protect informationwhich in the public interest should remain confidential.

Fifth, the suggestions in the earlier days that theCampaign for Freedom of Information was some kind ofradical conspiracy has been completely disproved by thesupport of so many respected individuals and organ-isations. A former Joint Head of tbe Civil Service is tochair a panel of highly-respected advisors; indeed, theFirst Division Association in its newsletter said: "Ingeneral we werefavourably impressed with the approachadopted by the campaign. This is certainly not justanother campaign with aself-interested orpolitical axe togrind. They know their stuff, are serious-minded andrealistic in their expectations. We found them willing tolisten to alternative argument and to take on board pointsabout practical and ethical difficulties. "

Our sixth and final conclusion arises from the above -it is that the Campaign must continue, and that allinvolved must commit themselves to build on its earlysuccesses, escalate its activities, and fight on into 1985,then 1986, and ever onwards until the people of Britain aregiven the same rigbt to know that has already beenestablished in other Westminster-style democracies suchas Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and also in theUnited States, and in many continental countries., We have been open, as befits a campaign for freedom ofinformation, about our tactical approach. It is to use thefull FoI Bill introduced in the House of Commons byDavid Steel as a discussion document over the next 18months or so, while weintroduce a number of smaller Billson specific aspects of freedom of information - toimplement the Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution's recommendations about environmental se-crecy; to create access to personal files and thus comple-ment the access provided by the Data Protection Bill; toreverse the scandalous decision to allow water authoritiesto operate in secret; and to further open up localauthorities.

In addition to these legislative initiatives, we willcontinue to develop our coalition, to demonstrate thatfreedom of information is practicable and necessary, andto underline the isolation of those powerful few whowould deny the majority the information collected in theirname and at their expense.

This is our strategy - but what is the approach of thePrime Minister and the selfish, secretive few around her?It is to set up straw men and knock them down. It is topretend that the campaign wants to end all secrecy, even ifit endangers national security, when we have made clearthis is not so, and published our list of exemptions. It is tomake claims about the expense of freedom of informationthat have not been justified by the experience of othercountries. It is to raise the spectre of more bureaucracy,another claim not substantiated by other countries. It is to

Secrecy and our medical records

Major benefit wouldresult from access bypatients to filesPatients will have a right to see themedical records kept on them bydoctors and hospitals if theCampaign's proposed Access to Per-sonal Files Bill becomes law. A reviewof the medical literature on patientaccess suggests that major benefits willresult.

(1) Patients will be able to detect andcorrect inaccuracies in their recordsErrors may have serious con-sequences, not only for a patient'streatment, but also for his or herability to obtain insurance or even ajob (when a medical reference is ofteninsisted on), as well as for medicalresearch. Yet studies of medical re-cords have often revealed widespreaderrors,

OP records in Leicester were foundto have wrongly described, or omitted,the sex of the patient in 1.40,70of cases;the patient's year of birth was wronglyrecorded in 4.2% of records.' A com-puter program designed to spot ob-vious implausibilities in informationbeing fed on to a medical centre'scomputerised records found that 7%of all entry forms contained errorssuch as treatment allegedly givenbefore the illness in question began,lEighteen per cent of patients in anOxfordshire practice, who were sentsummaries of their medical histories,found that additions, corrections ordeletions were required.' Forty-twoper cent of the records collected foradministrative and research purposesby Scottish hospitals were found tocontain one or more errors.' Forty-seven per cent of discharge forms heldat two Welsh hospitals omitted anyreference to discharge treatment;where drug treatment was mentioned,II% omitted the name of the drug, and21 % its dose or frequency. Forty-seven per cent of medical historiescontained no reference to possibleallergies, and on three-quarters of theoccasions when X-rays were per-formed, no report was present in thecase notes.'

The risks were illustrated by theexperience of a doctor at a universitymedical centre. He reported that astudent's medical notes wrongly de-scribed him as requiring anti-convul-sant medication following an oper-ation to remove a brain tumour. Theerror was discovered only by chanceand it was later found that the stu-dent's OP had mistakenly forwardedinformation that actually related to awholly different patient. A medicalreference based on this inaccuraterecord could well have cost the studentany chance of a job in certain oc-cupations.

(2) Patients will becoqJ.e better in-formed and likely to accept greaterresponsibility for their health.Patients are often dissatisfied with theinformation they receive from theirdoctors. A review of eight surveyscarried out in the UK between 1972 and1976 found that typically around one-third of patients were dissatisfied withcommunications, and in one study asmany as 65% were unhappy,'

Even where the information is pro-vided, patients often fail to under-stand or remember it. Here, too, the,opportunity to read their medicalrecord, and have questions about itexplained, may help patients obtainand understand the information theyneed and appreciate the rationale fo'rany treatment they have been advisedto follow.

Where access has taken place, extre-mely positive results have been found.Of a group of 88 psychiatric patientswho were given access to their recordsin an American general hospital, alarge majority (86%) found that theaccess 'helped them to better under-

stand their problems , .. and take amore active role in their treatment'.Coming to terms with the informationwas not an entirely smooth process -about half the patients acknowledgedthat they had been upset by somethingthey read - yet most (71 %) reportedthat they felt 'more self-confident as aresult' and (92%) were in favour ofopen records, An equally positiveresponse was found amongst the staffmost of whom said they were'comfortable with open records ...and thought this was a useful thera-peutic tool. . . (which) helped thetreatment of most patients' and led tomore accurate recording.'

(3) Patients may become less anxious,particularly if they have felt that staffmay have concealed the seriousness oftheir illness from them. Certainly,patients who do not want to know theworst about, say, a terminal illnessshould not have this informationforced upon them. On the other hand,patients may be offered reassuringstatements when in fact they want toknow the precise nature oftheir condi-tion. In the absence of a frank answer,they may come to suspect that theworst is being concealed from them.

Several studies of open records havenoted this effect. Of twenty-sevenpatients at a Massachusetts hospitalwho asked for their records (as statelaw entitled them to), eight wereconcerned about potentially seriousprognoses. 'These patients were ac-tually well-informed about their ill-nesses and treatment but seemed tofear that information was being with-held ... (they) tended to be reassuredby the opportunity to review theircharts, .. In three cases, the phys-icians agreed to share informationfrom the chart on a routine basis, andthis seemed to diminish patients' mis-trust and feelings of helpless depen-dency'!

(4) Patient access will provide a safe-guard against the possibility thathighly subjective or even prejudicedcomments will be made on the record.According to an article in the NewEngland Journal oj Medicine, 'Thinlydisguised rejection of certain patientsflourishes in the medical system' , Theauthor noted that it was not only thepatient who could be 'difficult'. The"mistrusting" patient has often en-countered the doubting responses ofprofessionals who challenge the reality

of pain, the need for help or medi-cation, or the veracity of the patient'sobservations' .Il

Another frank account in a medicaljournal acknowledges that: 'Admittedor not, the fact remains that a fewpatients kindle aversion, fear, despairor even downright malice in theirdoctors'll

Patients cannot expect their doctorsto be entirely free of such, after allhuman, responses. But they can insistthat they do not distort the doctor'sprofessional judgement, and appearon the medical record.

Of the 27 Massachusetts patientswho asked for their hospital records, itis significant that a majority apparent-,ly wanted them either 'to confirm the ~belief that the staff harbored negativepersonal attitudes toward them' orwhen patients 'perceived the staff to beskeptical about the validity of theirsymptoms'!~'" :l

Reports on this pageby

Maurice Frankel

(5) An open record may enbancepatients' confidence in the medicalstaff and lead to a more positiveworking relationship. Even the gestureof inviting the patient to look at therecord may have this effect. One suchgroup of patients 'often expressed asense of relief at having the secrecy

removed from their records and were'pleasantly surprised to be treated asadults ... (they) found it educationaland appreciated the trust implied','

Some of the individual responses ofpatients who saw their records areworth noting. One patient used in-formation on his record 'to justify aseries of specific requests for furtherevaluation and for follow-up care. Hewas pleased to be able to communicatewith his doctors in a quasi-professio-nal manner'.'

A patient at a psychiatric clinic 'wasangry at her therapist at another clinic.She wanted an objective view of herpast behaviour. The patient read therecords with extreme care. She waspleased that the descriptions of herwere accurate ... She ... (later) saidthat reading the records had helped toconvince her that "learning disabi-lities" were not the only problemaccounting for her past difficulties andthat there were other aspects of herpersonality which required her atten-tion'."

The staff at this clinic noted thatmost patients reacted positively toseeing their record and, indeed, wereimpressed to discover how detailed aknow ledge 0 f them staff had acquired;the staff themselves were surprisedand gratified at this favourable re-sponse."

(6) Patients would be able to carry acopy of their records with them whenthey travel. This may be particularlyvaluable for patients who fear they beat risk from sudden reccurrence of along-standing complaint, and mayneed emergency treatment from adoctor who has no personal knowl-edge of their medical history.

SECRETS FILE 3 described thecase of an NHS patient who movedaway from the UK. She was told thather NHS records would be kept forthree years and then destroyed - butcould not be transferred to her newdoctor abroad.

Drawbacks?What are the drawbacks of open

access? Some doctors fear that it mayprevent them from communicatingfrankly with colleagues, One doctor ina US open-access practice has re-marked that 'It is difficult to soft-pedal findings and observations re-garding a patient's cognitive function,his estimated level of intelligence, histhought processes, etc' and acknowl-

edged that he kept a private second setof notes to circumvent the open accessprocedures. 14

A better solution may be to ac-knowledge that some ofthe terms usedin medicine, particularly psychiatry,have pejorative connotations - atleast to the lay public - and could bereplaced by less charged alternatives.

The authors of the study of 27record-requesting patients in a Mass-,achusetts hospital were psychiatricconsultants on medical and surgicalwards. In their published paper theydescribed most of the 27 patients interms almost certain to cause offence ifthey appeared in the patient's ownrecords. For example, all but one ofthe patients were said to have 'per-s'onality disorders'; all the women andthree of tbe six men were judged to be'of the hysterical type with demand-ing, histrionic behaviour'; and a largegroup of the women had 'self-inducedor factitious illnesses'. Not surprising-ly, when they obtained their records,many of the patients 'reacted angrilyto what was written'.9

Was this the only way the patients'behaviour could have been described?Accurate, but less pejorative descrip-tions could have been shared with thepatients without arousing their angerand become the basis for an opendiscussion of any underlying prob-lems. Such records would be no lessprecise - and therapeutically far moreuseful.

A problem sometimes raised is'whether open access would forcedoctors to reveal information about,say, a terminal illness to patients whoclearly do not want to know. Patientswho prefer their doctors to decide howmuch information to give them neednot, and presumably will not, ask tosee their files. The Campaign's pro-posals will provide a right of access forthose who want it - but will notimpose information on anyone whodoes not.

Open access will give patients asafeguard against the damage thatcould be caused by errors, It willproduce records that are accurate andtherapeutically more useful, helpingpatients to understand their own con-dition, and play a full part in pro-tecting their health.

I Fraser, R,C, & Clayton, D,G, (1981), The accuracy ofage-sex registers, practice medical records and familypractitioner committee registers. Journal 0/ the RoyalCollege of General Practitioners, 31,410-419., Basden, A. & Clark, E,M, (1979), Errors in a compute-

rised medical records system (CLINICS). Medical In·formalics, 4, (4), 203·208,

3 Sheldon. M,G. (1982), Giving patients a copy of theircomputer medical record, Journal oflhe Royal Col/egeofGeneral Practitioners, 32. 80-86.4 Lockwood, E. (1971), Accuracy of Scottish Hospital

Morbidity Data, Brit, J, Prev, Soc, Med" 25,76-83,S Swansea Physicians' Audit Group (1983), Audit of the

quality of medical records in a district general medicineunit. Journal of Ihe Royal Col/ege of Physicians ofLondon, 17, (3), 208·212,'Stein, E,G, el al (1979), Patient access to records on a

psychiatric in-patient unit. American Journal 0/ Psy-chialry, 136, (3). 327·9,

7 Altman, H,H,. el al (1980), Sounding board, Patientswho read their hospital charts, New England Journal ofMedicine, 302, (3),169-171.8 LipSill, D,R, (1980), The patient and the record, NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 302, (3), 167·8,• Groves. J ,E, (1978), Taking care of the hateful patient.New England Journal of Medicine. 298, (16), 883·7,10 Roth, L.R, 01al (1980). Patient access to records: tonicor toxin? American JournalofPsychialry, 137,(5),592·6.11 Devereaux, M,W, (1974), Leller. New England JournalOf Medicine. January 31, 1974, page 288,

Secrecy and Environmental PollutionThe unacceptable restrictions on thepublic release of pollution in-formation have again been highlightedby new Health and Safety Commission(HSC) proposals.

The HSC has proposed to amend thecode of practice governing the safe useof lead at work. The changes includeexcellent disclosure of informationprovisions - but once again onlyworkers, not the public, will benefit.

The HSC suggests that a new para-graph be added to the code. This wouldstate: 'Employees or their represen-tatives should be informed as quicklyas possible of the results of any lead-in-air monitoring which shows levelsabove the lead-in-air standard andshould be informed of the reasons fortbe excess. Where emergencymeasures have been taken to controlthe effects of such an excess, em-ployees ... sbould be informed of themeasures taken.'

Nothing remotely like tbese safe-guards applies to members of thepublic who may be affected by lead -or any other form - of pollution.

Since 1974 the Minister has hadpowers, under section 3 of the Healthand Safety at Work Act (HSWA), tomake public disclosure regulations.The USC has never asked tbe Ministerto use these powers. In the meantime,the Act requires Factory Inspectors towarn employees of hazards at work -but an Inspector may be breaking thelaw if he gives information to amember of the public without thecompany's permission.

SECRETS FILE 2 described thesecrecy surrounding the whereaboutsof industrial sites using or storing largeamounts of explosive chemicals. In-

'formation about some 1,200 hazard-ous sites will have to be given to localmembers of the public under the termsofan EEC d rective. But tbe location of

an equal number of dangerous sitescovered only by existing UK regu-lations, and not tbe directive, willremain secret.

In May 1984 the HSC's AdvisoryCommittee on Major Hazards urgedthe HSC to consider whether tbe long-overdue public disclosure regulationsunder the HSW A should now beintroduced - but hinted at seriousdifficulties in doing so. In their ab-sence, the committee did not feel tbatthe Health and Safety Executiveshould be asked to publicly identify thedangerous sites. Instead, it resorted tothe time-honoured escape clausefavoured by government safety agen-cies: industry should adopt 'voluntaryarrangements for the supply of in-formation to the public' .

The Campaign believes that thevoluntary approach is unacceptable asan alternative to statutory disclosure.

Employees have legal rights to in-formation about hazards: members ofthe public who may be similarly af-fected should have the same rights.

The Campaign is now drafting a billto give members of the public a right toknow about health and environmentalhazards caused by cbemicals andpollution. The bill- which it is hopedwill be introduced into Parliament thisyear - will seek to implement therecent recommendations of the RoyalCommission on Environmental Pol-lution. In its 10th report, published inFebruary 1984, the Royal Commissionrecommended that: 'a guiding prin-ciple behind all legislative and' ad-ministrative controls relating to en-vironmental pollution sbould be apresumption in favour of unrestrictedaccess for the public to informationwhich the pollution control autboritiesobtain or receive by virtue of theirstatutory powers, with provision forsecrecy only in those circumstanceswhere a genuine case for it can besubstantiated' .

The effect on industry of F.o.l.

'Only the·bad will suffer'Freedom oHnformation would nothelp 'bad companies' but would bebeneficial to industry as a whole,said Des Wilson, Chairman of theCampaign for Freedom of Infor-mation, when he proposed a motionto that effect in a special committeeroom debate at the House of Com-mons.

"I would hope that aU sides of theHouse would accept that if a com-pany is endangering public health,or even life, or is acting dishonestly,it should be exposed", he said."Tbe exposure of bad companieswill be beneficial to industry as awhole because it raises the standardsof industry and protects tbe goodname of the majority."

Des Wilson aid tbatindustry couldnot and should not be isolated fromtbe community as a whole andwould benefit with everyone elsefrom a bealtbier democracy basedon access to information.

However, tbere were a number ofreasons wby it would benefit di-,rectly:

'.

• Fol would dispel unjustified pub-lic suspicion that companies wereengaged in disreputable be-haviour;

• FoI would encourage public con-fidence in the safety of productsor manufacturing processes byshowing there were no hiddenhazards;

• FoI would dispel beliefs thatregulatory agencies were con-spiring with industry to cover uphazards or anti-social behaviour.It would reduce pressure forunnecessarily restrictive con-trols;

• Fol would make available infor-mation about new official pro-posals, or possibly arbitrary regu-latory decisions and enableindustry to properly represent itsinterests;

• FoI would provide informationabout decisions unjustifiablyfavouring competitors;

A'S~ecial Secrets File

• Fol would remove tbe need towastefully duplicate product test-ing already carried out by othercompanies or competitors;

Des Wilson • . • "If a companyis endangering public health, oreven life, or is acting dishonest-ly" it should be exposed".

Secrecy in ScotlandDifferences in law and administrative practice in Scotland result in access to informationproblems dissimilar to those south of the Border. The Scottish Campaign for Freedom ofInformation concentrates on distinctively Scottish problems, as well as supporting the mainthemes of the United Kingdom campaign.

Sometimes information is madeavailable in Scotland in circum-stances in which it would not be inEngland. This is particularly true inthe case of information contained insocial work files.

In Scotland, unlike England whereit is considered not in the publicinterest to have social work filesdisclosed, a social worker's recordsmay be treated as a 'compelling andcompetent witness' by the court. Inother words a social worker in Scot-land can be asked to present theirrecords in the semi-public arena ofthe court. Although clients wouldthen have the opportunity of chal-lenging the social worker's account oftheir lives it may be the first chancethey have of hearing what is on theirown file.

The same applies in Children'sHearings (Scotland's own system ofjustice for young people) where in-formation in social work and schoolreports must be disclosed by panelmembers if it is material to the case.Thus the only way parents or a childhave a right to gain access to theirschool record is if the child gets intotrouble and is called to a Children'sHearing.

Apart from these very limited op-portunities in court or at a hearing(which no ordinary citizen wouldengineer simply in order to gain ac-cess to their files) we have little chanceto learn what is in our files or tocorrect errors.

Further, Wj! have little or no op-portunity to learn when, what, towhom and why information in ourfiles is passed. The potential thereforeexists for inaccurate or misleadinginformation to find its way into theofficial records of other secondarysources of service provision - forinstance, medical records being re-corded in social work files.

Taking a healthy interestIn Scotland, Hospital Advisory Ser-vice reports are only distributed at thediscretion of Health Boards, unlike inEnglahd where they are openly avail-able.

To be effective in influencing de-cisions concerning hospital and othermedical services at. a local level, con-

sumers and their representaives needto be fully informed as to how andwhy Health Boards make key deci-sions. Under Scottish legislation, lo-cal authority committee meetings areopen to the public, and the process ofdecision making can be directly ob-served on local services such as hous-ing, social work and environmentalhealth: it is unnecessarily inconsistentthat the equivalent Health BoardCommittees offer no such publicaccess.

Away from it all?A local resident of Dunoon is con-cerned about what would happen ifthere is a major accident at one of theMinistry of Defence's Clyde basesand whether or not the local emerg-ency services are prepared to cope,She would like to see a copy of thelocal Emergency Procedures Planwhich might contain details of evac-uation procedures and decontamina-tion if radiation is involved. To dateshe has only been given copies ofScottish Office circulars intended asguidelines to the heads of de-partments in drawing up their ownplans, and are therefore of limitedvalue in assessing the adequacy ofactual local provisions. However, shewas also refused a copy of the PoliceService circular, the excuse b~ing thatthis contained confidential advice toChief Inspectors. After requestingthe police circular, the lady was tele-phoned by the police asking why shewanted to see the document. Thecoincidence of an article in Lancetshowing an inexplicable rise in leu-kemia on the west coast of Scotlandand the revelation in the Ministry'sown Environmental Impact As-sessment that radiation is routinelyreleased into the Gareloch severaltimes each week, has given greatcause for concern.

There is far less information avail-able on the results of environmentalmonitoring around the Clyde Estuarythan there would be for a civil in-stallation.

Routine releases of radiation arenot the only problem. In 1981 it wasreported in the press that a Poseidonmissile, carrying ten warheads,'slipped' and crashed against the side

of a ship while being unloaded. If aconventional explosion had occurred,plutonium might have been scatteredover a wide area. The MOD, unlikecivil nuclear installations, do not haveto notify such incidents to anyone. Itwould seem quite reasonable andhardly threatening to national secur-ity to suggest that military nuclearinstallations should have to meet thesame notification conditions as nowexist for civil nuclear installations.

Tip offFurther up the Clyde, residents ofClydebank are concerned by a dif-ferent pollution problem. Alerted byTV documentaries about the healthhazards of asbestos, local residentshave started asking questions aboutan old asbestos tip. In 1980, a formerfactory inspector working for theCancer Prevention Society took upthe case on behalf of the local resi-dents. He described the Clydebanktip as one of the worst such cases ofasbestos pollution in Britain.

Report by the ScottishCampaign forFreedom ofInformation

Both the local authority Environ-mental Health Department and theHealth and Safety Executive haveconducted sampling tests around thesite but neither has been willing torelease the results of their tests, de-spite constant pressure from the Can-cer Prevention Society. Three yearsof lobbying and several appeals to theScottish Health Minister have onlyrecently resulted in the Scottish Of-fice referring the Society back to theHealth and Safety Executive and thelocal Environmental Health Depart-ment.

The Cancer Prevention Societywould like to see the Secretary ofState for Health introduce new legis-lation, which he is empowered to dounder Section 3 of the Health andSafety at Work Act. This would allowresidents around a factory working

• Fol would help companies tolearn of complaints receivedabout their products, pollution,or wbatever, and enable them totake corrective action before se-rious consequences develop;

• FoI would enable companies toobtain information needed forparticipation in law suits •..information which may not beavailable through the normaldiscovery process or may not beavailable sufficiently quickly;

• FoI would help industry to learnof new business opportunities;

• Fol would belp companies tolearn of possible patents in-fringement by competitors.

He told his audience tbat op-po~nts would probably seek to setup straw men and knock them down- to imply that companies wouldhave no privacy at all. "Anyonewho reads our Bill, or for thatmatter FoI legislation in otber coun-tries, will ,know there is adequate

with hazardous substances to haveaccess to information which is pre-sently only available to employees.

Woodman - don't spare theownerEarlier this year sixty acres of Aber-nethy Forest, one of the last remnantsof the ancient Pine forests, was clearfelled by the private owner. Thisaroused the concern of the NatureConservancy Council because the landwas in fact covered by a 'Dedication'agreement between the Forestry Com-mission and the owner, who receivedcompensation for managing the for-est in an agreed manner. Because theagreement is confidential it remains amystery why the owner was allowedto clear, fell and raises doubts aboutthe nature and value of the Dedi-cation agreement. Conservationistswould like to see more openness insuch arrangements in the interests ofour heritage.

At least in the above case the ownerof the land was well known, but this isnot always the case. Con-servationists, particularly in ruralareas, who take a particular interestin a piece of land can find themselvesin the position of being unable toidentify who the land belongs to. It isa complicated and not always suc-cessful business trying to obtain in-(ormation from the Register of Sa-sines in Edinburgh.

Water - The good news!It is at least encouraging that thesecrecy which surrounds the work ofthe Area Water Authorities in En-gland and Wales does not apply inScotland. While in England andWales, nine out of ten of the localwater authorities have taken advan-tage of the opportunity to exclude thepublic from their meetings, here inScotland all committee meetings ofthe River Purification Boards remainopen, including technical sub-com-mittee meetings where they exist.

In the case of the Clyde RiverPurification Board, anyone is wel-come to go into their office in EastKilbride and 'examine their books'.The Clyde Board have even taken theinitiative in publishing a ten yearreview of pollution statistics in theirregion, having obtained the per-mission of companies in advance,only two of which refused permissionfor publication of data. Other Boardsseemed less well prepared for dealingwith inquiries, referring only to fig-ures in their annual reports. All theBoards were confident that they wouldsee the long awaited implementationof the 1974 Act, allowing the dis-closure of information without thepermission of the polluter, and theClyde Board reported that it wouldsoon be possible to sit down at aterminal in their head office andaccess all their pollution data.

Another crack in the wall of secrecyhas been opened up by the Scottish

protection for industry. In-formation will be exempt from dis-closure if it would 'give an unfairadvantage to competitors of theparty concerned' . "

He said tbat business and indus-try b'ad been one of tbe main usersof Fol legislation in the UnitedStates and benefited considerablyfrom it.

Des Wilson stressed, bowever,tbat one ofthe positive effects of F 01would be that some industries couldnot feed to Whitehall inaccurateinformation in order to distort de-cision-making. He quoted as anillustration of tbis tbe cost andtecbnical difficulties involved in theintroduction of lead-free petrol."The petroleum and car manufac-turing industries have consistentlyrefused to publish what they submitto the authorities, and the obviousreason fortbis is that they do not wishit to be open to cballenge. We knowtbat in other countries tbey haveconsiderably exaggerated the prob-lems, and if it is suspected that theyalso do this in Britain, those sus-picions are fuelJed by their secrecy. "

He said "There are somebusinesses who sbould fear freedomof information but we must all hopethey are few - the test of the integrityof Britisb industry as a whole iswhetber it will support measures thatwill be unhelpful to dishonest orenvironmentally-bostile companieswhilst in no way unhelpful to in-dustry as a whole."

Consumer Council who have per-suaded the ScottiSh Office to makeavailable all responses to ScottishOffice consultation papers, unlessconsultees explicitly chose confiden-tiality. It is believed that the ScottishOffice is the first government depart-ment to take this step.

Access to Scottish Office circularshas also been improved. In the past, ithas often proved difficult or impos-sible to find out what circulars were inforce, and then to get copies. Now acentral inquiry and distribution pointhas been established at St. AndrewsHouse, in Edinburgh,

The great Scottish rating enigmaThe Scottish Rating System is dif-ferent from England, and the Ratingand Valuation (Scotland) (Amend-ment) Act contains a successfulamendment put forward by MichaelForsyth MP to open the accounts oflocal authorities to public scrutiny.This followed a long campaign by theNational Federation of Self Em-ployed and Small Businesses, Watch-dog on Rates, Scottish ConsumerCouncil and the Scottish Federationof Ratepayers, among others. Untilthen the detailed accounts of ScottishLocal Authorities were an impene-trable secret. However, this will not inany way enlighten the ratepayer as tothe machinations of the rating andvaluation of his home or business.

In Scotland, valuation for rateablepurposes is in the care of a RegionalAssessor and his department. TheRegional Assessor works within thelocal Regional Council's. organisationfor administrative purposes only.However, he is not answerable to thelocal authority for his methods ofassessment. So if it is felt that therating assessment of a group ofbusinesses is not conducive to thelocal economy then a complaint to thelocal authority will do little good, Anapproach to the Scottish Office will .be no more fruitful. The complainantwill be advised to appeal to an in-dependent tribunal. However, sincethe ratepayer is not given access to hisfile it is difficult to prepare an in-formed case for this appeal. He can-not query the assumptions upon whichlocal assessments are made. He can-not even check the Assessor's arith-metic. Regional Assessors are knownto be unwilling to address local meet-ings to explain their methods to thepublic. In the end the Scottish rate-payer has the expensive alternative ofseeking professional help to appealon something which could have beeneasily explained and understood, gi-ven open access to information.

The Scottish Campaign was for-mally launched at a conference inGlasgow on 11 April 1984, and itcan be contacted c/o ScottishConsumer Council, 314 St. Vin-cent Street, Glasgow G3 8XW.

Overseas News

Australian senatorcrushes myths onfreedom of informationIn a lecture sponsored by theCampaign for Freedom of In-formation at the House of Commons,Senator Alan Missen, former Chair-man of the Senate Standing Com-mittee on Constitutional and LegalAffairs inAustralia , crushed a numberof myths about freedom of infor-mation in describing Australia's firsttwo years of experience of an Fol Act.

He said suggestions that Fol wasinconsistent with the Westminstersystem were, "misleading and out-dated". He said "We came to the firmconclusion that the opponents of Folwere using the Westminster system as akind of strait-jacket which was re-straining democracy in a fixed pos-ition. They were not recognising that,far from Fol changing the system, thesystem was changing at all levels, andFoI was a response that was needed tothe changes that were occurring."

On the question of extra workcaused by freedom of information, hesaid that the Commission of Inquiry inAustralia was warned to expect 86,000enquiries a year about electoral mat-ters alone once Follegislation existed;

LettersA farmer, on subsidy, decided to "re-

claim" land which contained a famous IronAge site next to the Iron Age Village ofChysauster (an ancient monument). Al-though, belatedly the site was scheduled, bythe time the DoE Inspectorate got aroundto doing anything about what was going on,half the site had been destroyed. Anyway,fmallya rescue dig was mounted by the DoEand reputedly they have made interestingfinds (human remains, grave goods, etc.).However, when various people from thelocal press to local Antiquarians ap-proached the DoE to find what was beingdiscovered they were told the informationwas classified under Section 2 (mid-April1984this was).ln fact the DoE spokesmanwho talked to a reporter from the localalternative newspaper, Voice, quoted thewhole of Section 2 at him. Why? Because itis a "confidential and sensitive issue" ,(Judith Cook)

As an example of the absurdity of somesecrecy, you may like to know that the 30-year rule applies to the files of the Charity

The harmful and wasteful effects ofsecrecy are documented in a power-ful critique of 'the regulation, pro-motion and prescribing of drugs inthe UK. In The Wrong Kind ojMedicine? (Consumers Association,£3,95) Charles Medawar describeshow 'secrecy about drug defects,prices and costs, professional neg-ligence, drug licensing and control,and government action or inactionall tend to encourage uncritical druguse.' This, he says, 'reflects the viewthat people cannot control their own.health; and may not question how itis controlled on their behalf'.

The book contains a unique guideto more than 800 ineffective or over-expensive drugs available in the UK.It concludes that only drugs ofproven safety, effectiveness and va-lue-for-money compared to othersavailable should De licensed - andthat this would produce major sav-ings for the NHS drugs bill.

The response to this idea in the pastillustrates how secrecy can obstructrational decision-making. In 1983,an official committee rejected theproposal partly because it thoughtdoctors would see it as an infringe-ment of their clinical freedom. Theweight given to this view may beexplained bythefactthat 11of the 12committee members were themsel vesdoctors.

But it was the way the decision wasreached that was most significant.According to Charles Medawar:

in fact there were only six such en-quiries. The Immigration Dept. hadpredicted 100,000enquiries and in factreceived 465. Thus predictions aboutextra bureaucracy and costs hadproved largely unfounded. The cost ofFoI in the first year in Australia hadbeen about A$8 million and the publicservice only had to put on 45% of theadditional staff estimated when theAct was introduced.

Of suggestions that the Act wouldlead to a lot of disputes, he said that70070 of applications were now beinggranted in full, 23070 granted in part,and only 5% refused and 2% trans-fered to other departments.

He said that the cost of FoI inAustralia had been about one-fifth ofthe cost of total government propa-ganda and about one-tenth the realcost of all public relations by thegovernment,

Of suggestions that people wouldnot use the Act, he said that there hadbeen considerable ignorance in thefirst year but the number of appli-cations had gone up by 225% in thesecond year, In Queensland, however,

Commission, I cannot imagine any need forsecrecy in this subject.Wing Commander Derek Dudley Martin,OBE, BSc (£Con,)

Your Secrets File No, 4: An update onSecrecy in the Town Hall does not giveproper recognition to the contribution ofthe Liberal Party to the Campaign.

In order to encourage Liberals to take upthe Campaign the Association of LiberalCouncilors (ALC) has included details ofcampaigning ideas in our Grapevine pub-lication which is sent to nearly 2000 LiberalCouncillors, and more detailed points in aspecial Grapevine Briefing which was sentto the leading Liberal Councillors andactivists nationally. The response has beenremarkable by any standards. Liberalshave initiated discussion of the 1984Campaign with council motions or ques-tions on thefollowing Councils: WakefieldMDC, Guildford BC, Wandsworth LBC,Bristol City Council, Rushmoor DC, Nor-folk CC, Southampton City Council,Hackney LBC, Yeovil DC, Bournemouth

'The Committee's conclusions(though partly leaked), were notmade public by the government for ayear, and were probably never meantto be published at all. The fact thatthe Committee was convened andmet in secret, did not invite evidencefrom outside bodies, and did notpublish or cite the evidence on whichits conclusions were based underlinesthe primitive and precarious stateour democracy is in.'

In two recent examples, leakedconfidential government circularshave been found to contain illegalinstructions to officials.

only 25% of people surveyed indicated,they knew of the Act and lessthan 10%felt they would be competent to make arequest under it. A lot of promotionalwork was required.

Reminding his audience of prin-ciples often laid down for a FoI Bill-(a) disclosure must be the rule ratherthan the exception; (b) there must benarrowly defined exemptions justi-fying secrecy; (c) there must be en-forcement through appeals againstsecrecy to some independent arbiter-he added that there should be a fourthcriterion: there must be easy access."You must avoid having a marvellousBill that people do not use. You mustcharge low fees and have a right ofwaiver of fees. The public service mustbe enjoined to ensure it is going to behelpful to people seeking in-formation."

Copies of Senator Missen's lecturecan be obtained from the Campaignfor Freedom ofinformation, 2 North-down Street, London Nl 9BG bysending £1 plus a stamped addressedAS envelope.

DC, Eastleigh DC, Hampshire CC, Cam-bridgeshire CC, Sand wen MDC, Mid-BedsDC, Inverness DC, Pendle DC and thereare many more Councils where Liberalshave raised the issue of Freedom of In-formation and Open Government. Indeedthe whole issue is one of those whichdistinguishes Liberals from their politicalopponents.

Under the heading of 'The best sofar .. .' you even managed to credit theTories for an initiative on Bristol CityCouncil when it was a Liberal motionwhich, with a minor Labour amendment,was passed without opposition. In anothersection of the Secrets File you report thatthe London Borough of Hackney hasopened all subcommittees, working groupsand panels to the public. This was the resultof another Liberal initiative, but the rulingLabour Group have now reversed thatdecision, and have banned Liberal council-lors from subcommittees where there is agood legal justification for them to attend.(David Vasmer, Campaigns andInformation Officer, Association of Lib-eral Council/ors) ,

confidence'. Supplementary bene-fits officials who use the informationto investigate suspected over-payments are told to 'take specialcare to say nothing about the sourceof information that first causedsuspicion' ,

More illegal advice was found in aHome Office circular to immigrationofficials, which instructed them torefuse people who were barred fromentering the country on securitygrounds the right to make a phonecall before being turned back. Thisconflicts directly with publishedrules which state that all passengersrefused entry should be able to

Environmental Secrecy

End to pesticidescoverup in sightAn end to pesticides secrecy is now insight. Confidential safety studies onpesticides used in the UK will shortlybecome publicly available for the firsttime.

However, the change reflects nocredit on the Ministry of Agriculture- for the studies are being released inthe United States, not in this country.

The move follows a ruling by theUS Supreme Court in June 1984 thatpesticide disclosure laws, enacted in1978, should now be implemented infull. The court overturned injuctionsblocking disclosure, which had beenobtained by US pesticide manufac-turers.

The ruling will have immediateconsequences' for the UK. Most pes-ticides on the US market are also soldin this country, often by the samemanufacturers. In practice, this meansthat the safety studies submitted tothe US authorities are also used toobtain safety clearance in the UK.Although the Ministry of Agriculturecontinues to insist that these studiesmust remain confidential, the USEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) will now release them - andthey will quickly become available toenvironmental, consumer and tradeunion groups in the UK.

Data released by the EPA in thepast has dramatically highlightedsome of the serious pesticide prob-lems existing in the UK, and con-cealed by secrecy arrangements in thiscountry. The EPA has reported ip.fullon those pesticides whose safety test-ing was done by a laboratory knownto have falsified data. In June thisyear the Minister of Agriculture re-fused to release full details of the partplayed by this invalid data in the UK(Hansard, June 4, 1984, col. 74).However, many of the UK pesticidesinvolved have been indentified inregular reports on the subject issuedby the EPA.

The new US disclosure ar-rangements - which will lead to therelease of the fundamental pesticidesafety studies normally confidentialin this country - will seriously em-barrass the Ministry of Agriculture.Just four days before the SupremeCourt disclosure ruling, the Ministryhad published proposals for new pes-ticide legislation in the UK whichwould have reinforced present secre-cy arrangements.

Four major developments this yearhave already demonstrated the Min-istry's isolated position on pesticidessecrecy.

on capital employed), and can raisetheir prices if profits drop.

An investigation by The Guardianin July showed that several of the'unprofitable' companies who hadbeen allowed to increase prices ofindividual products by more than20% were in fact subsidiaries ofhighly profitable foreign-ownedmultinationals.

This raises the possibility that theUK subsidiaries may be deliberatelykeeping their profits low by trans-ferring their earnings to their parentcompanies overseas. The HealthMinister recently commissioned areport into such 'transfer pricing' -

Secret FactsA secret DHSS manual obtained

by the Legal Action Group instruc-ted legal aid officers to break the lawby passing information given inconfidence by people applying for'legal aid on to other officials.

The confidential 'L Code' rec-ognises that passing such in-formation on is illegal - the LegalAid Act specifically forbids it - butnevertheless tells officers to passinformation to DHSS benefits of-ficers if any overpayment of benefitis suspected. At the same time it tellsthem to 'Assure the applicant thatthe information will be treated in

telephone friends or representatives.The offending instructions were

suspended or withdrawn followingpublicity, but other secret instruc-tions remain in force.

The Health Minister, KennethClark, has refused to publish a reportwhich is believed to show that drugfirms are able to make excessiveprofits from the NHS,

Under the Pharmaceutical Price, Regulation Scheme, drug manufac-turers are allowed to charge the NHSprices that will guarantee them afixed level of profits (cu.rrently 21%

but has now refused to publish theresults.

The DHSS has obstructed thepublication of part of a detailedstudy of the supplementary benefitssystem which it commissioned fromthe Policy Studies Institute.

Most of the report was publishedearlier this year, but the introductionstated that the department had'asked for an opportunity to discussthe draft (of the remainder) bothwith management and staff, andwith the researchers, before thefindings are made available to a

• In January, the Freedom of In-formation Campaign publishedSECRETS FILE NO 2, preparedby Friends of the Earth, whichcalled, for an end to the unac-ceptable secrecy surrounding pes-ticide hazards in the UK.

• In February, the Royal Commis-sion on Environmental Pollutionpublished its tenth report whichrecommended much greater pub-lication of pesticide data.

• In March, two government Min-isters committed themselves toending unnecessary environmen-tal secrecy. Environment MinisterWilliam Waldegravetold the Com-mons 'In this area, above all, thepresumption must be in favour ofopenness' (Hansard, 12 March1984, col. 128). Two weeks later,Employment Minister John Gum-mer announced: 'in environmen-tal matters, the presumption mustbe in favour of openness ratherthan secrecy' (Hansard, 29 March1984, cols. 285-6). Inexplicably,ollJy the Ministry of Agricultureappears not to share this newgovernment policy.

• Finally, in May, the pesticidemanufacturers themselves ac-knowledged that 'the public doeshave the right to know' about thedetails of pesticide safety studies.In its 1983-4 annual report theBritish Agrochemicals As-sociation stressed that providedmanufacturers could prevent com-petitors making free use of theirdata, they would 'be willing todiscuss with Government anymeans by which greater freedomof information could be achieved' .

The new US measures show howmanufacturers commercial interestscan be protected without secrecy.Although safety studies will be pub-licly available, the law does not allowa competitor to use them to register arival product unless it has first ad-equately compensated the companythat produced them.

The disclosure laws were in-troduced after repeated findings thatmanufacturers had submitted faultyand incomplete safety studies on theirpesticides. They are designed to re-duce the chances of this in future, byexposing the date in full public scru-tiny.

The case for Britain to follow suit- now that much of the data will inany case be publicly available in theUS - has become overwhelming.

Maurice Frankel

wider audience' .However, the New Statesman has

reported that 'senior DHSS civilservants have been horrified by thestark portrayal of the attitudes ofmany benefits officers, expressed inforceful--vernacular ... often givingthe impression that they regard'claimants as a nuisance and that theysee their job as, being to preventaccess to benefits ... DHSS manda-rins have taken fright at unvarnishedquotations of racist and anti-semiticprejudices ... They have so far suc-ceeded in stalling publication whilenegotiating with PSI to produce a"more balanced" version'.

A British engineering companywhich illegally exported arms-mak-ing equipment to South Africa wasallowed to escape prosecution afterthe individuals and companies con-cerned agreed to pay a secret penaltyof £193,000.

The firm, Redman Heenan, se-cretly supplied equipmen~ for mak-ing ammunition, although it hadbeen refused an export licence in1974. This April The Observer re-vealed that although the Customsdepartment later learnt of the trans-action, they decided to accept secretpenalty payments instead of pros-ecuting because the company 'wasconcerned about the bad publicity'which would accompany a courtcase'.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information.2 Northdown Street, London N1 9BG Tel: 01-278 9686

Council for Freedom of Information(The Policy-making forum for the campaign)

AHiliates

Supporting OrganisationsNational Council of National GraphicalVoluntary Organisations AssociationTown and Country Iron and Steel Trades

Planning Association ConfederationAdvisory Centre for One-to-One

Education Campaign for the MentallyThe Patients' Association HandicappedThe NatiOnal Union of National Union of Students

Journalists Writers' Guild of GreatCommunity Rights Project BritainLegal Action Group Cancer Prevention SocietyFriends of the Earth National Union of PublicMIND EmployeesSOGAT '82 Civil and Public ServicesTransport 2000 AssociationShelter Society of Civil and PublicBUAV ServantsCLEAR Institution of ProfessionalSocial Audit Civil ServantsCampaign for Press and Library Association

Broadcasting Freedom National and LocalBritish Safety Council Government OfficersFire Brigades Union Association

Observer OrganisationsNational Consumer CouncilConsumers' AssociationThe National Gas

Consumers' CouncilNational Council for Civil

LibertiesThe Children's Legal CentreChild Poverty Action

GroupGingerbreadNational Federation of Self-

Employed and SmallBusinesses

Earth Resources ResearchScottish Consumer CouncilFriends of the Earth

(Scotland)USDAWNational Peace Council

All-Party Parliamentary Advisory CommitteeJonathan Aitken (Con), Jeff Rooker (Lab) Dafydd Wigley (PlaidSir Bernard Braine (Con) Robert Kilroy-Silk (Lab) Cymru)Robin Squire (Con) Michael Meadowcroft Donald Steward (SNP)Charles Irving (Con) (Lib) Allan Roberts (Lab)Robert Maclennan (SDP) Clement Freud (Lib) Chris Smith (Lab)Ian Wrigglesworth (SDP) .

Panel of former Civil Servants advising the CampaignSir Douglas Wass (Chair) Sir Kenneth Clucas Michael PowerLord Croham Sir Patrick Nairne Barbara Sloman

International AdvisersRalph Nader (USA) Sir Guy PowlesHarold Relyea (USA) (New Zealand)Lars Broch (Netherlands)

James Cornford (Chair)Des WilsonLord MorrisLord AveburyBernard DonoughueHarold EvansChristopher PriceDame Elizabeth AckroydPeter JayDavid HallGodfrey BradmanNeil McIntoshWilliam BingleyThe Bishop of BirminghamLeslie ChapmanRonald LaceyKim StallwoodCharles MedawarJohn WrightGeraldine Van BuerenEsther RantzenLiz DaviesJohn WinwardJo RollRalph JacksonDavid Baldock

James MichaelPatricia HewittMartin SmithRon BaileyVincent HannaPeter GibsonJenny KuperW H P WhatleyAlex HenneyJulie KaufmanJames TyeDave HiggsAndy WhyteTom BerneyArthur OrmondMary McAnallySuzanne PalfreymanGeorge CunninghamValerie EllisAlan HealeyMargaret JeffreySimon HigmanFaith LawsonSarah CawthraChristine HortonNancy Tait

National Council for theWelfare of PrisonersAbroad

Guild of British NewspaperEditors

Church of England Boardof Social Responsibility

Prison Reform TrustLondon Passenger

Transport Committee,National Energy Efficiency

ForumEntertainment Trades

AllianceBritish Youth CouncilFirst Division Association

of Civil ServantsNational Federation of

Women's Institutes

Members of ParliamentThe following Members of Parliament have stated that they "broadlysupport the campaign for measures to secure for all citizens access toinformation that they have a right and need to know, and measures toencourage greater disclosure of such information":Leo Abse MP Sir Bernard Braine MP Robin Cook MPJonathan Aitken MP Gordon Brown MP Robin Corbett MPDavid Alton MP Robert C. Brown MP Jeremy Corbyn MPPeter Archer MP Ron Brown MP Harry Cowans MPPaddy Ashdown MP Malcolm Bruce MP Tom Cox MPJack Ashley MP Norman Buchan MP Stan Crowther MPJoe Ashton MP Richard Caborn MP Lawrence Cunliffe MPTony Banks MP James Callaghan MP Dr. John CunninghamGuy Barnett MP Dale Campbell-Savours MPMargaret Beckett MP MP Ron Davies MPAlan Beith MP Dennis Canavan MP Terry Davis MPAndrew Bennett MP Alex Carlisle MP Eric Deakins MPGerry Bermingham MP Lewis Carter-Jones MP Jack Dormand MPSydney Bidwell MP John Cartwright MP Alf Dubs MPBetty Boothroyd MP Dr David Clark MP Alexander Eadie MPAndrew Bowden MP Bob Clay MP Ken Eastham MPRoland Boyes MP Harry Cohen MP Bob Edwards MP

John Evans MPAndrew Faulds MPFrank Field MPMark Fisher MPMartin Flannery MPJanet Fookes MPGeorge Foulkes MPDerek Foster MPJohn Fraser MPClement Freud MPWilliam Garnett MPBruce George MP,Dr. John Gilbert MPDr. N ,A. Godman MPBryan Gould MPJames Hamilton MPPeter Hardy MPHarriet Harman MPRobert Harvey MPRoy Hattersley MPEric Heffer MPNorman Hogg MPGeraint Howells MP

Community Projects Natcolcibar WestminsterFoundation Newcastle upon Tyne CVS CPSA Dept of Employment

Concord Films Council Northampton Welfare CPSA Beds, & N. Herts,Disability Alliance Rights Unit CPSA DHSS BlythEastleigh Friends of Northern Ireland Council of CPSA DHSS Blackburn

Handicapped Social Services AreaEast Lindsey MIND North Lewisham Law CPSA D'HSSDunstableElfrida Rathbone Centre CPSA DHSS Handsworth

Islington/Camden North Tyneside CVS CPSA DHSS Hull'Advice Centre in the Blue Exeter CND North West Coastal CPSA DHSS MidlandsAnimal Aid Family Advice Centre Federation CPSA DHSS OxfordAnimal Rights in Maidstone Family Rights Group Norwich & District CND CPSA Bonds & StocksArun Friends of the Earth FOE Birmingham Ore-Zodiac Community OfficeAssociation of Assistant FOE Godalming & .Assoc:, CPSA Boscombe Down

Librarians Guildford RlVerpomt(Smgle CPSA Strathclyde NWAssociation of Community FOE Loughborough Homeless) CPSA DHSS Doncaster

Workers in the UK FOE North Herts, Slough FoE, CPSA Gosport MODAssociation of Liberal Greater Manchester Play South Headmgly CPSA Ruthin

Councillors Resource.Unit Communi~yAssoc, CPSA British LibraryAureborough TUC Hammersmith & Fulham South Tyneslde Peace Lending Division

Unemployed Advice MIND CouncLI CPSA British TelecomCentre Harehills & Chapeltown Southmead CHC London SW

Aylesbury Animal Rights Law Centre Southwark Unemployed CPSA ClevelandGroup Heart of Bromley Residents Centre, CPSA DHSS Devonport

Barking & Dagenham Link Assoc. Star Walk-m Centre CPSA North SurreyBelfast Law Centre Hillingdon Trades Council Stratfordl Avon FoE CPSA Merthyr TydfilBenwellCommunity Law Hull Community Press Sunderland Youth CPSA DoE Merseyside

Centre Assoc, Employment Project CPSA DHSS SW ScotlandBirmingham Diocesan Hull CVS Sutto~ & Distric,tTrade CPSA DTl Midlands

Council for Social Iris ServicesCo-operative Umon CouncIl Resource CPSA DULCResponsibility Islington MIND Centre CPSA HN Customs &

Birmingham TU Resourse Islington Voluntary Action Totten,ham Community Excise LeedsCentre Council Project CPSA HMSO Manchester

Black Insight Community Joint Council for Welfare Tyneside Anim,alRights CPSA KensingtonOrganisation of Immigrants Walworth ~dvlce & Computer Centre

Blackfriars Advice Centre KnowsleyMental Health Commumty Work CPSA Newcastle 3Bradford Resource Centre Assoc. Project CPSA Merseyside HQBrent Voluntary Service Lawyers for Nuclear We~tEnd Co-ord Serv, for CPSA Leics.lNorthants,

Council Disarmament Smgle Homeless DEBristol Council for Leeds Trade Union & West Glamorgan CPSA MOD Portsmouth

Voluntary Service Community Resource & Comm,uniryService CPSA DHSS SloughBrixton Action Group Information Centre CouncIl CPSA Lancaster Posts &Brunei University Students Leigh & District Welfare Wolverhampton Federation Telecoms

Union Rights Group of CO~I?!-mity CPSA Manchester AirportCamberley & District London Amenity & OrgamsatlOns CAA

Animal Rights Group Transport Assoc, Woodhouse Park & Moss CPSA MOD StanmoreCambridge Campaign for Manchester Association for Nook Community Assoc, CPSA ODA (London)

Nuclear Disarmament Mental Health Youth Development Trust CPSA Portsmouth GMOCamden CAB Manchester Gay Centre CPSA South LancashireCentre for Alternative Manchester Youth & Trade Union CPSA Nottingham GMO

Technology Community Service Dunstable GraphicalClyde Action Manor Community Centre Branches SocietyCommunity Computing Medical Campaign Against ASTMS Burnley ISTC Elmdon Stainless

Network Nuclear Weapons ASTMS Education Leeds Graphical SocietyCommunity Council of Milton Keynes Welfare COHSE-517 Fulbourne Manchester Graphical

Humberside Rights Group CPSA DOE/DTP Society

VoluntaryOrganisations

Scottish Advisory PanelPeter Gibson David Goldberg

House of LordsThe follOwing Peers have indicated they "broadly support the campaignfor measures to secure for all citizens access to information that theyhave a right and need to know, and measures to encourage greaterdisclosure of such information":Earl Amherst Lord GardinerLord Ardwick Lord GiffordLord Ashby Lord HatchLord Avebury Lord HutchinsonLord Banks Lord HyltonLord Beaumont Lord JacobsonBaroness Birk Lord JenkinsLord Briginshaw Lord KaldorLord Brockway Lord KirkhillLord Chitnis Earl KitchenerThe Earl ·of Cromartie Bishop of LincolnLord Darling Baroness LockwoodLord Darwen Lord Lovell-DavisBaroness David Lord McCluskeyViscount Devonport Lord McIntoshLord Ennals Lord McNairLord Evans Lord MelchettLady Ewar.t-Biggs Viscount Melville

Doug Hoyle MPPeter Hubbard-Miles MPRoy Hughes MPSean Hughes MPSimon Hughes MPCharles Irving MPGreville Janner MPRoy Jenkins MPRussell Johnston MPBarry Jones MPCharles Kennedy MPRobert Kilroy-Silk MPNeil Kinnock MPArchy Kirkwood MPDavid Knox MPDavid Lambie MPJames Lamond MPRon Leighton MPRobert Litherland MPTony Lloyd MPHugh McCartney MPOonagh McDonald MPMichael McGuire MP

Allen McKay MPWilliam McKelvey MPRobert Maclennan MPKevin McNamara MPBob McTaggart MPJohn D, McWilliam MPMax Madden MPDr. John Marek MPDavid Marshall MPJohn Maxton MPJoan Maynard MPMichael Meacher MPMichael Meadowcroft

MPBill Michie MPIan Mikardo MPAustin Mitchell MPAlfred Morris MPDave Nellist MPDr. David Owen MPRev. Ian Paisley, MPGeorge Park MPBob Parry MP

T. Patchett MP'Tom,Pendry MPDavid Penhaligon MPPeter Pike MPRay Powell MPJohn Prescott MPGiles Radice MPMartin Redmond MPJ0 Richardson MPAllan Roberts MPErnie Roberts MPGeorge Robertson MPJohn Home Robertson

MPGeoffrey Robinson MPAllan Rogers MPJeff Rooker MPStephen Ross MPPeter Rost MPRobert Sheldon MPRichard Shepherd MPPeter Shore MPChris Smith MP

,The Committee for Freedom of Information(The Campaign management committee)Des Wilson (Chair) Ron LaceyJames Cornford Neil McIntoshJames Michael Tony Smythe 'Ron Bailey Christopher PriceCharles Medawar Martin SmithDavid Hall Jacob EcclestoneMargaret Hyde

Full-time campaignerMaurice Frankel

Merchant Navy & Airline Health Barrow in Furness CLPOfficers Assoc, NUPE Northampton Battersea CLP

NALGO Winchester Health NUPE North Dorset LG Birmingham EdgbastonService NUPE Norwich District CLP

National Assoc. of NUPE Redbridge General Bow& Poplar CLPGovernors & Managers NUPE Sheffield BeverleyCLP- Inner London Branch NUPE Tameside LG Birkenhead CLP

Newcastle Graphical NUPE Warrington General Camarthen & District CLPSociety POEU Birmingham Drivers Cardiff West CLP

NGA Liverpool POEU Ipswich Chelmsford CLPNGA Mid Anglia Portsmouth Polytechnic Chipping Barnett CLPNGA North Wales & Students Union Deptford CLP

Border Counties Scottish Graphical Society Dewsbury CLPNGA Solent SCPS BSO Newport Doncaster CLPNGA Watford SCPS Customs & Excise .DudleyEast CLPNGA Norwich & District Middlesbrough Dulwich CLPNUJ Bath SCPS Customs & Excise Eastleigh CLPNUr Bolton Reading Ellesmere Port & NestanNUJ Bournemouth SCPS DE Lanarkshire CLPNUJ Bristol SCPS DHSS HQ Central Elmet CLPNUJ Brussels No 2 Faversham CLPNUJ Cambridge SCPS DHSS Kent Gedling CLPNUJ Canterbury SCPS DHSS North Glasgow Govan CLPNUJ Central London Merseyside Hallam CLPNUJ Cumberland West SCPS DHSS South London Harwich CLPNUJ Cumbria SCPS DHSS Thames Hazel Grove CLPNUJ Dorset SCPS DHSS West Pennine Hemsworth CLPNUJ Exeter & District SCPS LCD Headquarters Hertford Stortford CLPNUJ Fife SCPS NHS Audit High Peak CLPNUJ Hampshire SCPS UKAEA Risley Hornchurch CLPNUJ Milton Keynes SOGAT ATAES Hyndburn CLPNUJ Paris SOGAT Edinburgh & Forth Leeds West CLP.NUJ Parliamentary District Littleborough/Saddle-NUJ Peterborough SOGAT Glasgow & West of worth CLPNUJ Press & Public Scotland Livingston CLP

Relations SOGAT London CA & EP Manchester Gorton CLPNUJ St Helens SOGAT Humberside Monmouth CLPNUJ Surrey Magazine SOGAT Leicester& District NewcastleEast CLPNUJ Walsall SOGAT Mid & South Kent North Cornwall CLPNUJ West Suffolk SOGAT Midland Counties North Durham CLPNUJ West London SOGAT Newton-Ie- North West Surrey CLPNUPE Airdrie Willows & District Ribble Valley CLPNUPE Southwell SOGAT Sawston Richmond CLPNUPE Central London Sunderland Graphical St Helens North CLP

Polytechnic Society Shetland CLPNUPE Crawley New Town Torbay & District Graphical Sidcup CLPNUPE Dundee District Society South Colchester & Haldon

Hospitals Universityof York Students CLPNUPE Enfield General Union South-East StaffordshireNUPE Glasgow LA YeovilGraphical Society CLPNUPE Huntingdon South Reddish CLPNUPE loW South Thanet CLPNUPE Leicester Labour Party Spelthorne CLPNUPE Newcastle upon B h Stoke North CLP

Tyne LA ranc es Swindon CLPNUPE West Swansea Attercliffe CLP Tyne Bridge CL,P

Senator Alan Missen(Australia)

, Donald McPhillimy

Lord MolloyLord MorrisLord PerryLord PittLord PlantLord RitchieBaroness RobsonLord ScanlonEarl of ShrewsburyBaroness StedmanLord StoddartLord Taylor of GryfeLord TordoffLord WillisLord WilsonLord WinchilseaLord WinstanleyEarl of Gosford

Cyril Smith MPPeter Snape MPClive Soley MPRobin Squire MPDavid Steel MPDonald Stewert MPGavin Strang MPJack Straw MPDr. Roger Thomas MPJack Thompson MPStan Thorne MPRichard Wainwright MPJim Wallace MPRobert Wareing MPKenneth Warren MPKen Weetch MPDafydd Wigley MPAlan Williams MP[an Wigglesworth MPDavid Young MP

Walsall South CLPWanstead & Woodford

CLPWaveney CLPWitney & District CLPWolverhampton SW CLP,Worthing CLPYnys Mon CLP

LiberalAssociations/SDPBridlington & Holderness

Lib. Assoc.Camborne/Redruth SDPCambridge City Lib. Assoc,

, Crosby Lib, Assoc.Dewsbury Const Lib,

Assoc,Durham Const Lib, Assoc,Earlsfield Lib, Assoc.East Twickenham Lib,

Assoc.Eddisbury Const Lib.

Assoc.Hallam Division Lib,

Assoc.Harborough Lib, Assoc,Ipwich Lib, Assoc,Islington South & Finsbury

Lib, Assoc.Leyton & Leytonstane Lib,

Assoc,Mole Valley Lib, Assoc.Northavon Lib, Assoc,North Westminster Lib,

Assoc.Norwich (South) Lib,

Assoc.Norwood Lib. Assoc,Peckham Lib. Assoc,Penrith & The Borders Lib,

Assoc,Reading East Lib. Assoc,Reigate Lib. Assoc.St Helens Lib, Assoc,Sheen Lib, Assoc,Southend West Lib. &

Radical Assoc,South Hams Lib, Assoc,Truro Constituency Lib.

Assoc,Union of Liberal StudentsWanstead & Woodford Lib,

Assoc.Woodspring Lib, Assoc,

The definitivebook on secrecyin Britain 1984

flle case for freedOlJJof illfol'DJation

.iJJBritain tOday

Just published, The Secrets File is the definitive book on secrecy in Britainin 1984.It is edited and half of its chapters are written by Des Wilson, chairman ofthe Campaign for Freedom of Information.Other contributors are ...• anti-secrecy campaigner Maurice Frankel, on environmental secrecyand access to personal files• local authority campaigner Ron Bailey on secrecy in the Town Hall• international expert James Michael on freedom of information in othercountries.This powerfully-written book explores the full extent of secrecy in Britain,the unacceptable nature of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and theneed for freedom of information legislation.It is a must for all who want to be briefed on this vital issue.

Order it directly fromthe campaignYou can help the campaign financially by ordering the book direct from2 Northdown Street, London NI9BG. Address your order to: Campaignfor FoI (Book Offer) and send the paperback price of £4.95 and your nameand address. It will be sent to you post-free. .,

Become a campaign supporterIIIIII

There are many ways whereby you can help the Campaignfor Freedom of Information, but the main one is with moneyand a declaration of support.

No matter how small your organisation, we would bepleased if you would affiliate.

We would also welcome individual supporters/subscribersto our print material.Affiliate membership (for organisations) is £7.50 per annumand enables you to financially assist our campaign; and in .turn to receive regular news of our work. If your organisation, D Enclose a cheque for.£ for the Campaign forbranch, committee, or whatever, is not already an affiliate, Freedom of Informationwe hope you will persuade it to become one, and use the D Would like to be an affiliate organisation and enclose aform on the right, cheque for £7.50

If you .are. an individual supporter yo~ can subscribe t? D Would like to be a subscriber/supporter and enclose aour publIcatIOns and thus become well-Informed on the Issue cheque for £7.50 to cover thisand share the facts with others. The publication/supporter D orsubscription is £7.50 per annum, have added £7,50 to my donation to cover this

In addition to this, do write to your MP and let him orher .know that you would like to see parliamentary ac~ion on D Can hel locallthe Issue. p y

If you live in London, you could offer voluntary help in D Iour office - all the usual chores but they have to be done. Will help at your London office

Above all, we need more knowledge of secrecy. If youknow of information being unnecessarily withheld, or can D Have special expertise or knowledge to offer - please Itell us of excessive secrecy, or can even slip us a secret or get in touch.two, please be in touch. In the meantime, please fill in the (Tick appropriate box) II attached coupon while it is on your mind and post it today.

Thank you. All cheques should be made payable to: The Campaign forFreedom of Information.

~~----------~~-----~

To: The Campaign for Freedom of Information2 Northdown Street, London N1 9BG Tel: 01 278 9686

l/We (indiviqual or organisation)of _

__________________ (address)

II